Review of Applicable Outlier Detection Methods to Treat Geomechanical Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliability of geomechanical models and engineering designs depend heavily on high-quality data. In geomechanical projects, collecting and analyzing laboratory data is crucial in characterizing the mechanical properties of soils and rocks. However, insufficient lab data or underestimating data treatment can lead to unreliable data being used in the design stage, causing safety hazards, delays, or failures. Hence, detecting outliers or extreme values is significant for ensuring accurate geomechanical analysis. This study reviews and categorizes applicable outlier detection methods for geomechanical data into fence labeling methods and statistical tests. Using real geomechanical data, the applicability of these methods was examined based on four elements: data distribution, sensitivity to extreme values, sample size, and data skewness. The results indicated that statistical tests were less effective than fence labeling methods in detecting outliers in geomechanical data due to limitations in handling skewed data and small sample sizes. Thus, the best outlier detection method should consider this matter. Fence labeling methods, specifically, the medcouple boxplot and semi-interquartile range rule, were identified as the most accurate outlier detection methods for geomechanical data but may necessitate more advanced statistical techniques. Moreover, Tukey’s boxplot was found unsuitable for geomechanical data due to negative confidence intervals that conflicted with geomechanical principles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".